5 ms·

> the statistics are that police are much more likely to face someone with a weapon in the US. Absolutely. And one reason we're supposed to respect the police

> the statistics are that police are much more likely to face someone with a weapon in the US. Absolutely. And one reason we're supposed to respect the police is that they take these risks. If they instead start shooting people first, they aren't taking the risks, they are creating them. Being a police officer interacting with citizens is more dangerous than being a citizen...but is it more dangerous than being a citizen interacting with the police?

davidw 7y ago
A swat call is someone telling the police that there's an armed and dangerous person on the other side of the door. That's not one of the instances of police, say, choking a guy selling cigarettes to death. It's a situation where even someone courageous is going to be pretty amped up.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Have you even watched the video of the shooting? Being amped up wasn't an excuse here. There was multiple cops aiming rifles at this guy, who was raising his hands when he was shot. The officer that shot him said he saw him move his hands at that's why he shot him. Even if the guy had a gun, there was no way he would've had time to raise it, aim it accurately (at cops who were behind cover) and take a shot without police being able to fire at him first after clearly seeing it was a gun. Plus, at that distance, he wasn't likely to hit a cop who was behind cover with a pistol anyway, even if he was able to shoot many shots.
  - davidw 7y ago
    I wasn't writing about this specific case so much as commenting on the fact that cops are far more likely to be nervous and twitchy in the US because of the very real threat that the prevalence of arms represents. Re-run a scenario 100 times and the more nervous people are, the more bad things will happen in some % of cases. Cops aren't saints in Italy where I lived for many years, not by a long shot. And yet this stuff happens less.
- _edo 7y ago
  > choking a guy selling cigarettes to death. Please don't spread misinformation about a tragedy that's been used to create so much division in this country.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    Good point - there's no evidence that he was actually selling cigarettes. They choked a guy just standing on the sidewalk to death.
    - _edo 7y ago
      Seriously? 1. He resisted arrest. He clearly stated his intent to resist arrest. He was given the option to be peacefully arrested, which he declined. In the resulting forcible arrest he was choked, which is wrong, he shouldn't have been choked, but he absolutely wasn't "just standing on the sidewalk" - he was resisting arrest. 2. When you say he was choked to death people might get the impression that there was intent to kill him or that he died on the spot from asphyxiation instead of later from a heart attack. (edit: roughly a heart attack. The coroner listed several pre-existing conditions that contributed, including heart disease, but didn't say "heart attack") Since we've had literal riots over things like this I think it's appropriate to ask that we all try to stick to the facts.
      - Miner49er 7y ago
        1. There is no such thing as a peaceful arrest. Arresting someone is violence. He was just standing on the sidewalk when they started attempting to arrest him. 2. The choking caused his death. He was therefore choked to death. We have riots because people like you keep defending murderers and they keep getting away with killing people.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        > There is no such thing as a peaceful arrest. Arresting someone is violence. When you expand the use of a word so widely, it ceases to have meaning. You could say a traffic stop is violence. Court-ordered searches and seizures could be violence.
- ergothus 7y ago
  My understanding of the militarization of police relative to the actual NEED for such implies that the amping up is the problem. However, I can certainly be wrong about this detail. Nonetheless, if police are deciding that an anonymous claim allows them to move to kill-first mode, then they are forfeiting the respect that taking risks for the greater good entails.

davidw 7y ago

A swat call is someone telling the police that there's an armed and dangerous person on the other side of the door. That's not one of the instances of police, say, choking a guy selling cigarettes to death. It's a situation where even someone courageous is going to be pretty amped up.

Miner49er 7y ago
Have you even watched the video of the shooting? Being amped up wasn't an excuse here. There was multiple cops aiming rifles at this guy, who was raising his hands when he was shot. The officer that shot him said he saw him move his hands at that's why he shot him. Even if the guy had a gun, there was no way he would've had time to raise it, aim it accurately (at cops who were behind cover) and take a shot without police being able to fire at him first after clearly seeing it was a gun. Plus, at that distance, he wasn't likely to hit a cop who was behind cover with a pistol anyway, even if he was able to shoot many shots.
- davidw 7y ago
  I wasn't writing about this specific case so much as commenting on the fact that cops are far more likely to be nervous and twitchy in the US because of the very real threat that the prevalence of arms represents. Re-run a scenario 100 times and the more nervous people are, the more bad things will happen in some % of cases. Cops aren't saints in Italy where I lived for many years, not by a long shot. And yet this stuff happens less.
_edo 7y ago
> choking a guy selling cigarettes to death. Please don't spread misinformation about a tragedy that's been used to create so much division in this country.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Good point - there's no evidence that he was actually selling cigarettes. They choked a guy just standing on the sidewalk to death.
  - _edo 7y ago
    Seriously? 1. He resisted arrest. He clearly stated his intent to resist arrest. He was given the option to be peacefully arrested, which he declined. In the resulting forcible arrest he was choked, which is wrong, he shouldn't have been choked, but he absolutely wasn't "just standing on the sidewalk" - he was resisting arrest. 2. When you say he was choked to death people might get the impression that there was intent to kill him or that he died on the spot from asphyxiation instead of later from a heart attack. (edit: roughly a heart attack. The coroner listed several pre-existing conditions that contributed, including heart disease, but didn't say "heart attack") Since we've had literal riots over things like this I think it's appropriate to ask that we all try to stick to the facts.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      1. There is no such thing as a peaceful arrest. Arresting someone is violence. He was just standing on the sidewalk when they started attempting to arrest him. 2. The choking caused his death. He was therefore choked to death. We have riots because people like you keep defending murderers and they keep getting away with killing people.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        > There is no such thing as a peaceful arrest. Arresting someone is violence. When you expand the use of a word so widely, it ceases to have meaning. You could say a traffic stop is violence. Court-ordered searches and seizures could be violence.
ergothus 7y ago
My understanding of the militarization of police relative to the actual NEED for such implies that the amping up is the problem. However, I can certainly be wrong about this detail. Nonetheless, if police are deciding that an anonymous claim allows them to move to kill-first mode, then they are forfeiting the respect that taking risks for the greater good entails.